The real stories from inside the F1 paddock

Hmmm… 10 teams

The Concorde Agreement – at least the one that lasts for a few more weeks – provides for more than 10 Formula 1 teams. Originally the plan was for 13 but one fell by the wayside and so there were 12. This year HRT has gone to the wall. And so we have 11. Bernie Ecclestone now says that he does not want more than 10. There was a time, not so long ago when Bernie believed that an 11th team was essential for the sport. I am sure if I dig through all the old articles I have I might find a quote, but at the moment I don’t have time to do that and so you will have to take my word for it. The logic was very simple. If there is a financial deal that provides funding for 10 teams, then the 10th team has no incentive to do anything more than survive, because it will get the money for 10th when it tries hard or not at all. Having a hungry (one might say desperate) 11th team is good in that it keeps the 10th team hungry. NASCAR has suffered from this concept in recent years with a number of “start and park” teams which turn up in order to collect prize money but do the minimum number of laps possible so as to avoid expenditure on engines, tyres and, of course, staff.

The logic for not having 11 teams seems to be that the 11th costs the Formula One group money, because it is not paid for from the prize fund, but rather directly from the Commercial Rights Holder’s share on the take. Thus an estimated extra $20 million will flow into FOM’s share of the take if there are no deals under whatever the new Concorde Agreement may bring. Private equity boys tend to deal in hundreds of millions but they also know that, as the old saying goes, “if you look after the pennies, the Pounds will look after themselves”. These guys love Pounds and could not give a toss about the sport.

I tend to think that F1 is better served to have 11, 12 or even 13 teams. The extra ones might come in handy if, one day, one of the other teams falls over, a la HRT. The British aristocracy has been well-served over the years by the concept of always having “an heir and a spare” just in case they are needed.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

72 Responses

Agree completely with your final para. Am feeling that just 10 teams is making the show into a no-show, whilst 12 or better still 13 creates a much bigger show. (Having said that am not in favour of mobile roadblocks tho’ realise someone has to be last).

If FOM saved say $20m odd from having only 10 teams then a 19 race calendar would probably be more acceptable to their bottom line to I guess.
Been much better with the extra teams for the fans I think though.

Joe, I’ll join some dots which I imagine you’re choosing not to bother doing yourself.

Besides it being ‘a good thing’ having a spare team in case…it doesn’t half help Bernie & FOM screw down the other 10 when they can credibly tell them to take the deal on the table or take a hike. I can’t believe that Bernie won’t do whatever it takes (& not a dollar more) to keep Marussia in the game, because it won’t cost that much. He just won’t fold till the last moment, and then only if the team reduce their demands to the bare minimum.

And as for me, I feel like one of those zoo animals who’s environment is being ‘enriched’ to make them work to dig out their food themselves instead of just having it handed to them. Thank you for staying provocative and thought provoking…

Back in 2009, I remember well Bernie saying that he would love to have 26 cars and ever the return of pre-qualifying sessions. Probably he forgot to take the medicines that single day.

We cannot think that Bernie relies on only one option about any subject. We should look at what happens all in all – and BE neither puts some effort on drawing some new teams to his beloved series nor eases the life of who’s already there.

And making the sport less reachable is not the best way to make it better.

I’ve enjoyed the Caterham and Marussia battle this year and hope they both catch the middle of the pack in 2013.
Caterham has a good base but seems to lacked something Marussia, after a bad start are making progress and am I right they will finally have KERS next year?

You are right joe, not long ago you wrote that bernie wanted eleven teams and not ten to make sure that the tenth team is fighting to the end. With ten teams you dont have to work, only parade around lap after lap, bernie wants the tenth place to fight it out for the money and not take it for granted…..

It’s not just the 10th team that gets a hurry up of course, it’s all of the midfield runners. If the guys at the back up their game then all the other teams need to as well. Eventually, as we’ve seen increasingly since the ‘new teams’ entered in 2010, the midfield runners start themselves giving the top teams a hard time. The competition is improve all round. It’s somewhat like having promotion/relegation in team sports, and carries with it essentially the same risks (both to the sport and to the competitors)

Would be a shame – there’s always potential for a surprise if there are a few small teams dotted around.

I want to see a relegation/promotion system for teams myself, with a bit more competition. Potentially use GP2 as the lower series. Would make the race at the back as exciting as the front, encourage turnover of fast new drivers and generally keep everyone on their toes. Like in the Premier League.

If the teams add something to the sport, I would agree, but the 3 “new” teams haven’t managed to score a point yet. We keep hearing that Caterham will make a big step, but they never do. Until they show some sort of positive performance, the argument for more than 10 teams falls flat. Quality, not quantity.

I don’t know. I axe comments that are rude and unpleasant – whether to me or to others – and those that are potentially libellous. I am not going to perpetuate a libel. Otherwise I allow pretty much everything. I don’t have hours to spend analysing it all and maybe I axe some that should not be axed and allow some that should not be allowed, but there are only so many hours in the day (he writes at 04.57).

If you have a series that does nothing to reduce costs and bureaucracy and will always professedly be friendly to only Ferrari or a huge company that sees no problems in spending infinite money like Red Bull, maybe the argument really falls flat. Otherwise, the argument stands up.

If the 107% qualifying rule still exists then the ‘new’ teams are not too slow just because they are invariably at the back. If you feel they should be lost because they are last then one might end up with dropping the last team each year until we’re left with six teams. I agree it’s sad that not one of them has scored a single point but I feel quantity (as long as it’s within 107%) is also valid. I would even entertain fifteen teams… or, at least, thirty entries if any team wishes to run a third car…

On that point I feel the number of people in the pit-crews is ludicrously excessive and, although I wouldn’t want half of them to lose their jobs, the existing personnel could be spread over three cars. Two-second pitstops are wonderfully challenging, and exciting, but I also like to actually watch the pit-stop action without a slo-mo replay…

It is about both Quantity with Quality. If it was just about Quality, why have mid-field teams at all? Start with 10 teams and keep kicking out the bottom team each year until only one teams remains at the top. That team can go to all the circuits and run all by themselves.. Quality.. Right?
BS!!

I agree about having 12 or 13 teams. Formula One fans couldn’t care less about the complexities of how teams are financed. We want action on the track and we want a variety of teams and engines. I particularly enjoy underdog stories and if we start limiting the teams to 10 then opportunities for those stories will be limited. I love a 26 car grid, I love drivers having to deal with traffic as part of their skill test and I love minnow teams getting opportunities to sniff points on the odd occasion. It’s good you bring up NASCAR there because F1 should do the opposite of whatever they try. It’s the most contrived motor sport there is and consequently completely unsatisfying. Sometimes I despair about how out of touch the administrators of F1 seem to be. I think despite their disregard of fans the sport has had a great year generally. But empty grandstands, wherever the event, make the sport look stupid and ought to be avoided. Make it cheaper and fill them or re-locate. Limiting the grid to ten teams is not a fan driven solution and it’s the fans who matter. We can go and play cricket of football in the park, or ski down a mountain but we can’t race an F1 car – we have to watch them. So F1 should better realise that and start catering more for us, not the elite world occupied by financiers, bankers and born-to-rule team bosses.

Would love to see a full field of 26 cars, like we had a couple of decades ago. It increases the probability of action occurring somewhere on the track at any given time, gives you more to look at when you’re at the circuit (I’d rather see an Andrea Moda or an HRT go past than stare at an empty piece of track), and, even in todays blue flag nanny-state, can add some unpredictably when they are lapped – as we saw at Austin.

Trent…totally agree!! A lot of those cars in the mid-pack and backmarkers had a lot of character (and sponsorships even!). My all-time favorite midpack teams were definitely the Footwork-Arrows and Leyton House squads. I especially loved the Leyton House cars…they always had a sharp looking car and color scheme.

Another cool thing back then, was when a lot of those lesser teams failed in a race, they failed in spectacular fashion with engines blowing, or just getting into each other…I miss the late 80s and 90s car…I thought the action was so much better.

Totally agree. I grew up in the 80s,and watching the mid-field and backmarker cars was a big part of my enjoyment of the race.My favourite part of the season was always the anticipation of the teams unveiling of the current car,and getting to see all the different shapes,interpretations,and sponsors.There was a lot more leeway in design,but still was great to see the smaller teams unusual designs,particular favourites being the Larrousse-Lamborghini’s with their triangular sidepods,Tyrrell’s high nose,The Black/yellow/and white Minardis,and various left of centre plans from the likes of Osella,and Ralt. If Bernie wants to save 20million,then he’s entitled to,but surely having a few extra teams would add more than that in terms of entertainment and marketing value.Any team,regardless of pace,is going to garner supporters,and more importantly,create spots for drivers on the grid,and thereby potentially putting more nationalities in F1.That in turn pulls more supporters of those drivers in the gates at their home gp. This lack of foresight makes no sense to me.I know B.E. can’t be that much longer fpr this earth,but surely there needs to be some sort of sustainability model for F1 when he does go.

BE is possibly just seeing which way the wind is blowing. He suggests a max of 10 teams as that is all the world can currently scrape up together…Better to make out the formula is restricting access and make it appear exclusive than admitting that no one of importance actually wants or can afford to join.

F1 is basically a franchise business these days. If you want to play, you have to acquire a franchise. It is a good model, but you need 11 teams to keep everyone hungry. It is impossible for promotion/relegation as the budgets in F1 are 50 times those in GP2.

Fi seems impenetrable to a new team. Stewart got some way, in less competitive times, but the three players now are always seemingly stuck half a second away. Maybe if you combined the budgets / knowledge in Marrusia and Caterham you could challenge 9th, but you would then have t obankroll anyone in hard times until the team changed owner, or you permanently lose a team

Maybe these comments from Bernie are not aimed at the bottom, but at a staggering Force India. How many F1 teams are “secure” – Ferrari, McLaren, Mercedes, Red Bull…are there more on solid foundation?

Joe, for keeping track of a mine of information and exactly who said what, Opera browser has an excellent “Notes” feature, you simply highlight text, right click, “send to Note” it is there, saved, can be sorted into folders and, crucially, hyperlinks to the original page you spotted it on.

As always, fearlessly truthful, we do appreciate your work, no matter who you upset.. .

I tend to think all teams in F1, right down to HRT, are full of ultra competitive people striving to do their best, i can’t see any team setting for 11th/12th and taking the money, its not in the nature of the beast.

I am a real believer in the need for backmarkers not just for the show but as training grounds for all the young designers, engineers, mechanics, aero people and all the other specialists needed to run an F1 team. The battle over 10th place this year was a nailbiter and as important to Caterham and Marussia as the title was to any of the big guns.

The opportunity should always be there for a Fernandes to throw his hat in the ring. It’s my kind of rich guy that is really going to gain nothing, by jumping into a sporting venture unlike any other, but could lose a huge amount by doing so and yet they take the plunge.

It would have been nice if HRT were to make it, but as Joe has said it wasn’t going to happen from a base in Spain, but overall the other two newbies have done all right. Marussia and Caterham have both closed the gap to the back, not bad in a couple of years and with alot less money.

It isin’t about back markers. There are back markers in everything.
e.g. If there were only Mclaren and Redbull in F1, based on this years result Mclaren would be a back marker.
It is about how far back these back markers are. F1 is the pinnacle of motor sports. 4 seconds of the pace is not even remotely competitive. 1 or maybe 2 seconds off will still create backmarkers, but not the kind that makes you feel pity for them.

Can I suggest that it doesn’t matter if a team is 8 seconds off the pace, if they could conceivably become contenders in time?

The team I follow, which now calls itself ‘Lotus’, having previously pretended to be ‘Renault’, actually spent its first year running a two- car team whose greatest achievement was that each car did actually qualify to race.

On precisely one occasion each.

It didn’t stop them going on to score 3 WCCs. It just took a few decades to do it.

I think it’s conceivable that Caterham could one day be championship contenders. It’s not clear to me that the team is less credible than the ex-Stewart team was towards the end of its ‘Jaguar’ period, or arguably at times as Red Bull under Mark smith’s leadership, come to that.

It’s obvious what’s happening. Marussia, having barely lost out on the big money, are feeling aggravated and want more money to stay afloat. Now, with only 11 teams, and with Bernie having previously stated that he wants at least 11 teams, Marussia think they’ve got the upper hand. “If you don’t give us what we want, we will leave F1″. But Bernie comes right back at them: “I don’t care if you leave, I never wanted you anyway”. It’s simply a negotiating tactic.

Is Bernie just preparing the ground for another team to collapse in the next few weeks so when we go into the first race of 2013 with only 10 teams he can says that’s exactly the right number and F1 is perfect?

Given the above, do you believe that Marussia will continue to compete?

I’m sceptical that a) they can credibly expect to relegate Caterham -consistently- to 11th place, or that alternatively b) they have a business model which allows them to cover costs whilst remaining 11th themselves. And absent one or the other, I can’t see how they can stay in business. Thoughts?

The (English) Premier League funds all 20 of its teams, plus the teams that have been members over the past four or five seasons (though to a lesser amount). The teams just promoted into the Premier League often struggle to stay a member of the group even with the knowledge that they will receive £50m or so, because the differential between the amount each club receives from the TV contract is nearly £2m, quite difficult to make up from other sources. The 11th F1 team cannot realistically hope to become the 10th team with *no* funding from the TV, central sponsorship and advertising contracts.

Of course the Premier League is actually a co-operative of its 20 members, with very little going on administration and its chief executive’s lifestyle, not run by an organization that snaffles a large percentage before the teams see anything.

The overseas broadcasting contracts, the title sponsorship money, (national) radio broadcasting contracts and commercial contracts are simply divided equally between the clubs, with smaller shares of some being given to relegated clubs. The UK TV money is divided into three pools: half goes into the Basic Award Fund, divided equally; a quarter goes into the Facility Fees Fund, paid equally to each club involved in a televised match, with a minimum guaranteed number of matches per year; the final quarter makes up the Merit Payments Fund. This last, the prize money, is divided into 210 shares, with the first-placed club getting 20/210, the second place 19/210, third 18/210, down to 18th getting 3/210, 19th 2/210 and 20th 1/210. The size of the UK TV contract is such – Sky’s part was reportedly £1.62bn – that the merit award fund is at least £405m and so each share is at least £1.93m.

Clubs are required to try sufficiently in each match, and clubs have been fined in the past for fielding a weakened team. F1 could certainly incorporate a carrot-and-stick approach, for example, if a team does not achieve the 107% rule (without extenuating circumstances), or does not complete a certain proportion of laps, they forfeit the corresponding proportion of basic award payments, with that rule suspended for a couple of years for new entrants, so long as the relative performance is improving.

I did some digging on the net and found a story [from a few years ago] where Bernie was quite keen for the new teams. I have copied a short section of it here for you.

Bernie Ecclestone is pressing for rule changes that would attract new F1 entrants, reports Autosport today. Currently there are 20 F1 cars competing, although 24 are allowed under the rules. A reduction in the US$48m deposit required from teams intending to enter F1, and the elimination of the regulation requiring them to build their own chassis, are among the measures favoured by the Formula One group principal.

“We’ve been campaigning for this for a long time,” said Ecclestone. “There are one or two current entrants who agree, and people in the same situation who disagree. If they all agreed, we could get on and do it. Even if some teams don’t drop out, we should still do this.”